I don't have a problem with EA did nor do I have a problem with this story...It's a great news story..I also think Qubit has been doing a great job at finding news for me to read..
However I just wish he would post the stories then put his opinion into the comment section and or label it as an *Editorial*

Again..this is a tech site not a tabloid site....but anyways Qubit carry on with the good work maybe a little less opinion injected..

it's not even close to the same. you created a program. the reviewers are a bunch of poor grammar writing noobs who want free stuff. plus, this isn't 2005. now any 12 year old and put together a pathetic website and give it a go.

I don't have a problem with EA did nor do I have a problem with this story...It's a great news story..I also think Qubit has been doing a great job at finding news for me to read..
However I just wish he would post the stories then put his opinion into the comment section and or label it as an *Editorial*

Again..this is a tech site not a tabloid site....but anyways Qubit carry on with the good work maybe a little less opinion injected..

Click to expand...

I think you have described the situation very well for me also.

I don't comment a lot on these forums, but I read over the news on a daily basis. I'd prefer that the news section stayed purely objective but understand if others disagree.

Nahhh they didn't do anything wrong...I completely understand why they did what they did...
I'm a CoD fan and I bought BFBC2 and I was bored out of mah freakin mind....I like quick A.D.D. action games..If I'd of reviewed something like this It wouldn't have been a good review cause I'm already Bias of the series....

IMO they did the right thing here....I'd of done the same thing if I was in there position.

People who look up their trusted reviewers should already be quite aware of that particular person's style and whether they can be sometimes bias'd or not towards a particular product and then be able to separate his own objections from the review itself. Battlefield 3, Skyrim and MW3 are the three most anticipated titles this quarter or year its reasonable to try and eliminate some biases out there and to be quite honest I wouldn't give my game to someone who I knew was one sided anyway because to me it would mean that they are not a professional.

And as Easy Rhino has mentioned

this isn't 2005. now any 12 year old and put together a pathetic website and give it a go.

BS reviews exist since ever. How in the world can editors give Failcry 2 9+ when the game barely hits a 5/10 and that with a lot of 'let's ignore some of the bad things' ?
If anyone thinks is OK rating 9+ a game with practically no AI, no innovation, next to no action, full of bugs (practically unplayable in some situations), cloned/copy-pasted everything, anti-player landscape, useless trading system, bad FoV and wide-res problems, then we have a big problem with reviews.
Practically that game didn't had anything but nice GFx, and that partially bugged and it got a 9.

Now that's what I'd call bribed review.

In the case of BF3, probably EA tried to filter a little, but any above average editor would of got the trick right and would of answered the questions with something very close to what EA would want to hear.

C&C series were working very good, but everything else did have various performance problems.
Anyway, EA is on the good path regarding the performance issues right now. Let's just hope they keep it up and don't do console copy-paste again.

C&C series were working very good, but everything else did have various performance problems.
Anyway, EA is on the good path regarding the performance issues right now. Let's just hope they keep it up and don't do console copy-paste again.

Click to expand...

Surely it would be more accurate to state that DICE is doing a good job and the fact that they are owned by EA is incidental?

I simply feel that EA is too large and too varied in terms of the products it provides to define company policy or trends on the basis of a single game.